posted
I would not generally consider myself a socialist, and I am most definately not a communist (as practiced by Russia, Cuba, etc.). Democratic centralism has proven to be a complete failure, rule of the philospher-kings doesn't work by any stretch of the imagination.
What I do consider myself as is a democrat in the truest sense. Not in the sense the most americans think of (if you asked me which party I prefer, on half the issues, I'd say Republican), but rather in the sense that I believe that every person should have direct equal input into the government. The technology now exists for every person to be able to stay informed and actively participate in a truely democratic government.
The internet is, of course, going to be a key part of any truely democratic process, because it has the unique ability to take power away from special interests behind closed doors and bring it back to the people for which government is really supposed to be working. Candidates can directly contact constituents via email and cmapaigns can be conducted over the internet far cheaper than has ever been possible before.
Education is the other key. Students need to be far better educated than they are now. First off, a far more creative approach needs to be taken twoards teaching history. History is not a list of names and dates, but rather a tapestry of events, ideas, goals, and beleifs that have dramatic influences on each other and daily life. Kids need to be taught not what happened, but why it happened. They need to be inspired to find creative solutions for problems that take into account the why of history. We can make hate crime laws all we want, for example, but we cannot change a thing unless we understand the root cause of the problem and change the forces that create the symptoms we hear about on the news every day. That kind of proactive approach is completely missing from education and government alike.
I believe that government probably functions best as a representative system because of its size and the nature and amount of work being tackled, however, constituents should have more control over their representatives. Campaign financing needs to be removed from the loop altogether, replaced by free access to media outlets, which will be made significantly easier by the internet. For that to work, the so called digital devide needs to be bridged, through free, easy access to public terminals in libraries, schools, and government offices (this can now be accomplished with incredibly cheap internet appliances). We must also break the incumbancy issue. Without corporate involvement, political duty should return to the concept of temporary civil service. It may even be possible to have one house of congress actually drafted, rather than voted. Technology might enable them to work almost exclusively from their home towns, perhaps without even leaving their normal job (absence from their job becomes a sticky issue, but should be workable, I think).
These are just a few of my thoughts; I'd rather encourage you to post your own, than go on at length with my own thoughts, as many of you may have better ideas and more creative solutions than I have, being so blinded by my own casual but constant examination of the american political system.
The other side to this is the economic system, for which I have very few ideas. It has become clear to me that our system is breaking down in many ways, but I have yet to see any real solution, and I surmise that something complately radical and different from any previous economic system would be needed to promote the interests of the inidivual above all else.
That is my goal, I think; to make the individual the focus of the system. Each person has a right to be heard, and a right to be involved in te ongoing creation of a system that will improve their entire lives. Each individual has a right to choose a profession and a lifestyle that is beneficial to them without harming others, and has a right to the tools necessary to acheive that goal. I think money might have to be removed from the system entirely for any of it to work, but it will have to be replaced with a better incentive. Wealth will have to be replaced in life as the primary purpose with the will to better onesself and those around one. To re-use an underused cliche, success must become measured by everyone in society not by how much you collected for yourself, but by how many people were made better by your presence. That basic value system must be engineered into every aspect of society.
What we should strive to do is create something that comes as close to accomplishing that goal as we possibly can, and we should publish it every place we can. I think people would be pleasantly shocked to see a group of (for the most part) teens and college aged artists working on such a forward thinking concept. If you'll forgive me for continually waxing philosophic and perhaps even wasting bandwidth, I think that is something we can and should strive to accomplish, for no other reasons than the knowledge that we have created something meaningfull and the shear challenge of the endeavour.
I leave you now with a pair of quotes from someone who is perhaps one of the greatest orators of the last fifty years (though maybe not the best Attorney General ):
"The future does not belong to those who are content with today, apathetic toward common problems and their fellow man alike, timid and fearful in the face of bold projects and new ideas. Rather, it will belong to those who can blend passion, reason and courage in a personal commitment to the great enterprises and ideals of American society." -- Robert F. Kennedy
"Some people see things as they are and say why. I dream things that never were and say why not?" -- Robert F. Kennedy
Saltah'na
Chinese Canadian, or 75% Commie Bastard.
Member # 33
posted
Seanr: I'm not a socialist either, contrary to what many people may believe. I reside in the Democratic Centre, but sometimes I may lean more towards the left than the righ, that I will admit.
But awesome speech. Run for politics and you'll get my vote anyday.
------------------ "My Name is Elmer Fudd, Millionaire. I own a Mansion and a Yacht." Psychiatrist: "Again."
[This message has been edited by Tahna Los (edited September 06, 2000).]
posted
The best goverment is where the decisions are made by a man and carried out by robots. Robots obey unquestioningly. It's really quite efficient, and it works really well... unless you're a robot.
There are examples throughout history of good leaders: perhaps we should determine what qualities they tend to have in common.
I'd start with education. Moreso, a diversity of fields of education. The most intelligent leaders (or really, people of any kind) I've ever known were virtual polymaths, with knowledge and experience in a large variety of subkects. In fact, I'd say very often people like that can end up being leaders without really trying.
------------------ "Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master
posted
Tahna: Thanks! FYI, I did run for senior class president in high school, and managed to draw the highest turnout on record. Unfortunately, I still lost, due at least partially to the fact that I was running against the star of the basketball team (who was a good friend of mine both before and after the election, BTW). The only thing that saved his campaign was his refusal to debate me. I had a string of issues I felt were important and needed to be addressed, but his one and only plank was to create a better homecoming float that year. Go figure. I suppose if I'd gotten some people to work for me and get out the vote, I could have pulled it off, but I relied more on campaign posters ($100 worth of color copies, paid for out of my own pocket) and direct campaigning. If I ever do run for office, I won't make the mistake of trying to be too self-sufficient again.
First of Two: The problem there is that absolute power corrupts absolutely (and we ain't talkin' 'bout no vodka, eitha!). The second problem there is that no single person can possibly understand and represent everyone's needs equaly, because no leader has had the experiences of all their subjects. That is the whole reason for representative democracy.
F'r instance, my need for inexpensive reading material does not equate with your need for a steady job, to use but a minor analogy.
The job of a leader is to choose between options which will satisfy the greater needs, often at the cost of the lesser. (And we're not talking about 'perceived needs' which are really WANTS, but most people today who want feel better thinking they need.)
I just saw the results of a study... the average 'poor' US citizen owns a microwave, a color TV, and gets cable. This is NEED?
I agree, Representative Democracy is 'fairer' (except in the bread-and-circuses 'Tyranny of the Majority' Jefferson worried about.
But Benevolent Tyranny is still more efficient.
As to power corrupting... perhaps, perhaps not. (I refuse to use the 'God analogy' any more, it's old.) In any case, I promise only to abuse my power when I believe it's in the best interests of all concerned. Unlike a current seated president who shall remain nameless.
------------------ "Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master
posted
Perhaps it's 'pinky' in the US because the censors didn't want the children to be warped by the mentioning of mice genetalia.
------------------ "...you know, Omega, there's a phrase you might want to look up. It goes something like "paranoid arrogant fuckwit who has more chance of ejaculating to the moon than he has of ever convincing a girl that he's a viable prospect for marriage." -PsyLiam, September 16, 2000 10:23 PM.
posted
Bah. Do not question me. I am master of all cartoon theme-that I know. And, let me tell you, I know some.
It might, might occasionally be "They're Pinky, they've Pinky..." but it's more likely a case of whatever that "I think it's something so I hear it" phenonemon is called. Listen for "dinky", and you'll probably hear "dinky". Someone a FAQ...
But, just to clear it up, Is Buttercup the "hardest fighter" or the "toughest fighter"? I know. Honest. I'm just checking...
------------------ "Why do you want to spend time with a deer? They're so stupid, they get hypnotized by headlights!" - Guido Anchovy
Printer-friendly view of this topic
